Business Profile

Auto Service Contract Companies

American Auto Shield, LLC

This business is NOT BBB Accredited.

Find BBB Accredited Businesses in Auto Service Contract Companies.

Complaints

This profile includes complaints for American Auto Shield, LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see

Customer Complaints Summary

963 total complaints in the last 3 years.
158 complaints closed in the last 12 months.

If you've experienced an issue

Submit a Complaint

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

Initial Complaint
Date:11/14/2022
Type:Service or Repair Issues
Status:
AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.

Complaint: 18402100

I am rejecting this response because: AAS makes money by making customers continue to pay extended warranty contract premiums by saying if they cancel their contract then it voids their parts warranty, even if they can no long afford it or no longer have a need for it. This is unheard of. Just like any other extended warranty clam or insurance claim, the company pays a claim on your behalf if you are paying premiums for the coverage. A warranty is a warranty, no matter if you

Sincerely,

***********************
and he told me that the contract did not state if you cancel your policy your warranty is void. He told me to call AAS back and talk to someone in the escalation ***** I called AAS back and talked to someone in the escalation ***** and they told me that when I cancelled my coverage that voided my warranty. AAS do not have to pay for another transmission, all they have to do is contact the provider of the rebuilt transmission and have them send the dealership another transmission, because the transmission is still under warranty, but they refuse to do so.
Business Response
Date: 11/21/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("AAS") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on August 13, 2021. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage, benefits, and exclusions.

This claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called AAS on December 31, 2021. The ** reported the vehicle had been driven to the ** and the customer complained that the transmission was not shifting into the next gear although the engine would rev. The ** advised the transmission was slipping and the clutch fluid was full and dark with metal in the fluid.

The customer provided his statement of the issue on January 4, 2022. The customer believed the issue began in October 2021 but was not exactly certain. He noticed the issue when accelerating. The transmission started slipping and the engine would rev up pretty high before shifting into the next gear. The customer stated he did not have any service and maintenance records because he moved from ********** to Georgia and could not recall the names of the repair facilities.

The fully assembled vehicle was inspected by an independent, third-party inspection service on January 7, 2022. The fluid was dark and burnt with metal shavings in the fluid. The inspector's findings were consistent with an internal transmission failure based on no vehicle movement and the condition of the fluid. AAS reviewed the inspection report and determined the inspection verified an internal transmission failure. AAS proceeded to part source the transmission and called the customer to review the claim on January 13, 2022. The customer advised he wished to proceed with the ****sourced transmission. The claim was authorized on January 17, 2022, and the confirmation of the parts order was received on January 19, 2022. There were issues sending the payment to the ** as the ** did not provide a final invoice until the end of March 2022 (which is required for payment processing).

The customer called AAS on November 11, ************ that the replacement transmission had failed and inquiring about the warranty. The customer indicated that his contract had expired, and *** explained to the customer that the part ********************** existed only so long as the *** was active and effective. The part warranty is provided as part of the benefits under the ***, and when the *** is cancelled, all benefits, including the part warranty, are terminated. As the customer canceled the ***, the ********************** was no longer applicable and the warranty was voided when the *** was canceled.

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist"). A claim was started on December 31, 2021, for a transmission replacement on his vehicle. That claim was authorized for repairs on January 17, 2022, for a vendor supplied replacement transmission with a twelve month/12,000 miles ("12/12") warranty. The contract ended on June 12, 2022, canceled by the customer, thus ending all benefits provided under the contract. The customer called AAS on November 11, 2022, stating that the transmission was having issues again and it would be under the vendors warranty. The vendor's warranty on any supplied part follows the contract; if the contract has ended and the failure was not reported before then, the failure would no longer be covered under that warranty. Thus, the *** has no further contractual obligations and there is nothing further AAS can offer at this time.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Customer Answer
Date: 11/29/2022

Complaint: 18402100

I am rejecting this response because: AAS makes money by making customers continue to pay extended warranty contract premiums by saying if they cancel their contract then it voids their parts warranty, even if they can no long afford it or no longer have a need for it. This is unheard of. Just like any other extended warranty clam or insurance claim, the company pays a claim on your behalf if you are paying premiums for the coverage. Their paying for the transmission for you, and afterwards the transmission and the warranty belongs to you.

Sincerely,

***********************
Initial Complaint
Date:11/14/2022
Type:Service or Repair Issues
Status:
AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.
I am still waiting on a resolution with the warranty company's vendor and have been advised by Car Shield that I was to be contacted directly by the vendor 2 weeks ago to settle this issue with their motor. To date, no one with their vendor has contacted me. I am not satisfied with the resolution since this has still not been resolved.
px $4900) . We agreed that we would be responsible for that overage. Once the work was complete and the vehicle ready to be paid for and picked up, auto shield still would not authorize the $4900 allowance to be paid toward the new motor. I ended up paying $14000 of my own money to pick up the vehicle on 10/3/22 since I had been without this vehicle since June due to the ineptitude of Auto Shield and their refusal to fulfill their contractual obligation under this extended warranty. I have called them multiple times over the past six weeks requesting an update as to when I might be reimbursed for what I had to pay out of pocket for authorized repairs to my vehicle and still do not have an answer and no resolution.
Business Response
Date: 11/21/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("AAS") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on March 9, 2020. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage,benefits, and exclusions. AAS thanks the customer for her long-term commitment. The *** was purchased by the husband of the complainant, and *** will refer to both husband and wife as the "customer" in this response.

This claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called AAS on June 29, 2022. The ** reported the vehicle had been towed to the ** and the customer complained that the vehicle would cut off while driving. The ** reported two diagnostic trouble codes ("DTCs"), P0016 and P0017 (camshaft and crankshaft correlation codes). The ** diagnosed the timing chain had failed as well as the gaskets. The ** reported that the customer had arranged the tow and it was not provided by the ** nor the roadside assistance program offered by the ***. AAS called the customer and asked for a copy of the tow invoice. The customer stated that would be provided as the customer was seeking reimbursement for the tow. The ** provided its estimate for repairs, and AAS scheduled an inspection of the vehicle to verify failures.

The vehicle was inspected by an independent,third-party inspection service on July 7, 2022. Five DTCs were found, three relating to misfires, one relating to the camshaft correlation, and one related to the timing chain jumping time. The inspector verified valve and piston contact using a borescope in cylinders #1 and #4. The inspector verified the timing chain was loose, consistent with a failure of the chain tensioner. The inspector's findings were consistent with a failure of the timing chain tensioner.

The inspection report was reviewed on July 12,2022. The inspection verified the engine had jumped time, causing a piston and valve collision resulting in catastrophic damage to the engine. AAS worked on parts sourcing and determined that using an ****sourced part was the most cost effective option. The claim was authorized on July 25, 2022.

The ** then called AAS on August 12, 2022,stating that the ****supplied engine had a leak from the oil pan and the starter was faulty. AAS verified the price of the starter on Forte and the labor time and cost on IDFX (a nationally recognized service and labor guide). The claim for the starter was authorized. AAS asked the ** to provide photos of the leak, and parts resolution was started for the oil pan gasket leak issue. AAS contacted the vendor and provided the information for the ** so the vendor could reach out to the **. The ** advised on August 18, 2022, that it had not yet heard from the vendor regarding the leak or starter issues. AAS then sent an email to the vendor requesting clarity on the situation with the engine and the starter.

The customer called AAS on August 19, ************ she had purchased another vehicle during the time it had taken to get coverage for the repairs and asked whether AAS would provide reimbursement for the time she had been without the vehicle. The customer was advised that the *** had coverage for rental reimbursement only. The customer provided a rental agreement on August 22, 2022. The rental agreement was with a plumbing and heating company, and the customer was advised that the rental must be with a licensed rental company. The customer was directed to Section C. of the *** regarding rental reimbursement.

The vendor advised AAS on August 23, 2022, that it had nothing to do with the issue with the starter. AAS then went over the estimate for the starter and the engine oil pan reseal with the ** and advised the ** that the claim would be sent to the team lead for authorization. AAS verified MSRP for the cost of the sealant and keyed the claim for the cost of a sourced starter as a part credit as the ** did not want to deal with another shipped in part. AAS received the final invoice from the ** on August 26, 2022, and released payment to the ** for the starter and sealant.

The customer advised AAS on August 30, 2022, that the vehicle had a cracked motor head after the repair. The customer was advised that the adjuster would contact the ** for details, and a new parts resolution was started. The customer stated on August 31, 2022, that when she picked up the vehicle, the oil started leaking everywhere and she never made it out of the parking lot. The engine began smoking and burning. The customer stated she would pay the difference between the **'s new engine and the used engine because she did not want another used engine from an AAS vendor. The customer advised on September 1, 2022, that she had asked the ** to order a new engine.

The ** called AAS on September 6, 2022, stating that the customer wanted to proceed with the **'s engine and was willing to pay the out-of-pocket costs. The ** advised it would be at least one week before the **'s engine would arrive and the vendor's engine could be pulled. AAS sent an email to the vendor regarding the claim situation, and the vendor advised it would call the ** regarding a pickup date.
The vendor advised AAS on September 13, 2022,that it would contact the ** to arrange pickup and bring the engine back to its shop for inspection. AAS told the ** on September 14, 2022, that the vendor would arrange with the ** a time to pick up the engine and apprised the customer of the current situation.

The information for the authorization totals was sent to the ** on August 29, 2022. However,the ** had not yet provided its final invoice and AAS needed to speak with the vendor regarding the part credit for the engine to be picked up by the vendor. AAS sent emails to the vendor on September 29 and 30, 2022, requesting an update on the part credit. The vendor replied on September 30, 2022,that it was waiting to hear back from its yard. The customer was becoming increasingly frustrated as she was waiting to pick up her vehicle after completion of the repairs. *** explained to the customer on October ******, that the *** was almost at the limit of liability and the **'s engine could not be added to the claim until AAS received the part credit from the vendor. The vendor was awaiting photos from the ** showing the engine on a pallet and would want to inspect the engine before providing a credit amount.

AAS received photos of the engine on the pallet from the ** on October 3, 2022. Those photos were provided to the vendor. The customer sent an invoice for reimbursement on October 3, 2022 for the out-of-pocket costs for the repairs. The ** confirmed on October 7, 2022, that it still had the part and wanted to return the part to the vendor. AAS sent an email to the vendor on October 11, 2022, to check on the credit for the part so AAS could move forward with authorization for the **'s part.

The vendor sent photos of the engine to AAS on October 12, 2022. The engine was sitting on a tire in one photo and then was shown improperly strapped down in another photo. The vendor advised AAS that it told the ** three times that it could not pick up the engine as it was shown in the photos and had not heard back from the **. *** told the vendor it would communicate this delay to the customer and perhaps the customer could get the ** to act more quickly. The ** advised AAS on October 19, 2022, that the engine was no longer at the ** and was picked up sometime on October 13,2022.

As of October 31, 2022, AAS was still awaiting confirmation from the vendor of the amount to be credited so AAS could authorize the **'s engine. The vendor advised AAS on November 16, 2022, that the item was received back by the vendor and the credit had been processed. AAS called the customer and asked the customer to provide the final invoice. AAS then emailed the customer on November *******, advising that AAS had spoken with the vendor about labor reimbursement and the vendor would contact the customer regarding that issue. AAS advised it had obtained authorization for the out-of-pocket cost on the engine and advised that the authorization would be for the maximum amount left on the ***s limit of liability. The customer was advised that a check would be sent to the customer on November 18, 2022.

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist"). The claim was authorized for an engine replacement, and this was the correct adjudication. The issue with this claim is that the ****sourced and supplied engine had an issue. The customer chose to pay out-of-pocket for the cost of the **'s engine and was to be reimbursed the cost of the ****sourced engine (roughly a difference of $1,400).

AAS reached out to the customer on November *******, advising her that the vendor would be contacting her and also advising her of the authorization for reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs. AAS advised the customer that it would be issuing a check to her on November 18, 2022.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Business Response
Date: 12/05/2022
A Legal Claims Specialist (the "Specialist") for American Auto Shield ("AAS") reached out to the vendor regarding communication with the customer and issuance of a reimbursement check. It appears that the vendor failed to contact the customer,so the Specialist is now calling the customer to update her on the reimbursement. A check was issued to the customer on November 30, 2022, and was to be mailed the following week. The vendor asked that the customer allow thirty business days for the check to arrive by amil.

The customer is asked to notify the **************************** ***************************************** if the check does not arrive within the indicated thirty days timeframe.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.
Customer Answer
Date: 12/09/2022

Complaint: 18402062

I am rejecting this response because:

I have paid $13900 out of pocket to make pre approved repairs to my vehicle. The $5800 check sent to me by car shield is insufficient. This only covered the *** of the damaged motor itself and makes no allowance for the labor to remove and replace the motor THEIR vendor provided that was cracked and unusable. I require to be reimbursed for the labor required to replace this motor. Car shield is still forcing me to try and obtain this labor reimbursement from THEIR motor vendor, whom I have not ability to contact. I don't even know who they are. The total labor required to replace this motor is $3900 with ****% tax in addition. Car shield needs to reimburse this labor cost and they should work with THEIR vendor to recoup these costs. It is unreasonable of them to require me to work with a vendor I have no relationship with and who has no motivation to make me whole.

Sincerely,

*********************************
Business Response
Date: 12/15/2022
The rejection was reviewed by the Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist"). ******************** Contract (the ****** has a limit of liability of $10,000. American Auto Shield ("AAS") paid the repair facility and paid the customer. Those payments together were over the customers *** limit of liability. The customer is referred to Section K. of the *** regarding the limit of liability.

Additionally, the customer is receiving a check from the vendor due to the labor that was required for the ** to determine the supplied engine was bad. This amount was determined by the vendor pursuant to its parts resolution policy and is outside the purview of AAS.

The customer is dissatisfied that she will not receive the full $3,900 she reports the ** charged to remove and replace the damaged motor. It is unknown how the vendor reached this amount, but the amount reimbursed by the vendor seems reasonable for the engine replacement. AAS at no time authorized $3,900 for the engine replacement.

The customer requested the **'s part knowing she would be incurring out-of-pocket as she chose to use the **s motor rather than using a replacement engine supplied by the vendor. The customer also does not need to do anything else with the supplier as the supplier has already advised that the check is on the way. The Specialist told this to the customer, and this information was included in the response filed by AAS.

The customer has already been paid $500 over the ***'s limit of liability by AAS and the supplier is providing her with an additional amount for the labor warranty. There is nothing further AAS can offered at this time.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/12/2022
Type:Service or Repair Issues
Status:
ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.
Complaint # ********
In response to the *** the rental car issue is resolved because I never got an extension on the rental car. Even though my 2010 Lexus IS250 still remains in the repair shop with the transmission replacement not completed. I am really getting stressed out with this situation. I just want my vehicle repaired properly & returned back to me. This has become very inconvenient & inconsiderate of this particular Company (***).

Please Advise.
Very disappointing process taking place.
*****************************
************
************************
2022.I REALLY APPRECIATE MY REPAIR CREW AT MONAGHAN'S AUTO REPAIR SHOP.*****************************
Business Response
Date: 11/18/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("***") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on October 10, 2019. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage,benefits, and exclusions. *** thanks the customer for her long-term commitment.

This claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called *** on September 20, 2022. The ** reported the vehicle had been towed to the ** and the customer complained that the vehicle shifted very harshly upon acceleration. The ** reported it had duplicated the customer's concern and reported the transmission was a sealed unit. The ** advised it had serviced the vehicle previously, had its estimate available, and had identified the cause of failure. The ** then reported on September 23, 2022, that he was only able to get the transmission to "act up" once and stated he could not check the fluid due to the transmission being sealed and finding no diagnostic trouble codes ("DTCs"). The ** thought it was possibly a solenoid issue but the vehicle may need a new transmission. *** asked the ** to use a scan tool to record snapshot data on the tech stream when a fault occurs and possibly perform a pressure test. *** called the customer on September 23, 2022, to advise her on the status of the claim.

The customer called *** on October 3, 2022, for an update and was advised that *** was still awaiting the cause of failure from the ** as well as an estimate for repairs. The customer then discussed RDI (remove, disassemble, and inspect - a tear down) with *** and stated she did not authorize RDI due to not being able to afford the cost. *** advised the customer that the claim could not move forward with a full diagnosis which required RDI.

The customer advised *** on October 11, ********* the vehicle had been moved to another repair facility (the "new **"). The new ** submitted an online claim with the customer's concern but no diagnosis. The customer called *** on October 12, *************** rental and was advised that rental would not be provided until the authorization of the claim and meeting the required number of labor hours. As the vehicle had been moved to the new **, *** could not provide a time for when authorization could occur. *** offered to assist with setting up rental for discounted daily rates.

The new ** called *** on October 13, 2022, and advised that it had its diagnosis ready. *** asked the new ** to provide its estimate. The new ** provided photos of the failure and its diagnosis on October 19, 2022. The new ** found DTCs P0761 (shift control solenoid), P0781 (1-2 shift solenoid), and P2757 (torque converter clutch pressure control solenoid). *** advised the new ** on October 25, 2022,that the DTCs pointed to a valve body, which is a part not covered by the *** (Section B. of the ***). *** advised the ** that RDI would be required to prove there was a mechanical failure of the transmission. *** called the customer on October 25, 2022, to advise her that RDI was required to find the cause of failure, and the customer was upset because of the cost.

*** reviewed on October 26, 2022, the photos provided by the new **. Only core photos were provided, and there was no verification of the failure. The new ** was again advised of the requirement for RDI to verify a transmission failure as the DTCs were for a failure for an electrical component, for which the *** did not provide coverage. The claim could not move forward without a verification of a transmission failure.

The new ** provided on October 31, 2022, photos of a fluid sample to verify the mechanical failure. *** worked on verifying the new **'s parts and labor. *** began part sourcing on November 1, 2022, as the new **'s sourced transmission was no longer available. The new ** advised it would accept shipped in parts. *** sourced a transmission at one of its vendors with an estimate delivery date of four days after the order was placed. The claim was authorized on November 1, 2022, with a shipped in transmission, and the part was ordered that day.

The customer was advised on November 2, ********* she would be provided five days of rental (four days for delivery of the part and one day for labor), and *** proceeded to set up a reservation.

*** learned on November 7, 2022, that the part had not been delivered to the new **. The customer called *** in the morning of November 7, 2022, and stated that the rental had expired and she needed more days of rental. *** advised the customer that we would call the vendor to obtain a current time for delivery and would reach out to the customer after learning the time for delivery. *** then learned that the delivery date would be November 8, 2022. The new ** verified on November 8, 2022, that the part had been delivered.

The new ** reported to *** on November 11,2022, that the transmission had been installed and the new ** noticed the front seal was leaking. The new ** had replaced everything as set out in the instructions provided by the vendor, took the vehicle for a test drive, smelled fluid burning, and learned the transmission was leaking. The customer then filed a complaint with the **********************.

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for *** (the "Specialist"). The claim facts are as follows:

1.         The ******** called in a claim for a transmission concern on September 20, 2022. The ** reported DTC codes of P0761, P0781, and P2757. The ** was asked to obtain the customer's authorization to provide further diagnosis and RDI to show metal in the system. The ** was advised to provide its estimate and show the cause of failure.

2.            The **'s diagnosis provided on September 23,2022, did not positive identify a transmission failure as a unit. An electrical failure and solenoid failure were given as the possible cause of failure. The ** was asked to obtain the customer's authorization to perform partial RDI to show metal in the system to move the claim forward for a transmission assembly replacement. The customer stated that due to the cost of RDI, she did not want to authorize RDI.

3.            The second ** submitted an online claim on October 11, 2022, for the same concern. Apparently,the vehicle was driven to the second ** as no tow invoices were submitted and there were no records showing in the roadside service provided by the ***.

4.         The customer advised on October *******, that rental would be needed. *** explained to the customer that rental is authorized only when the claim is authorized. *** asked the ** to provide photos of the vehicle and photos of the cause of failure to move the claim forward. The ** was also asked to send its estimate for repairs.

5.         The ** submitted vehicle photos on October 19, 2022, but did not submit photos of the cause of failure. *** asked the ** to drop the pan and provide photos to *** to show the cause of failure.

6.         The ** provided its estimate on October 25, 2022, and was advised that photos were still needed to show the cause of failure. The customer called *** to voice her concern over delays in the claim process. At that time, *** advised the customer that no photos of the cause of failure were provided b the **, only photos of the vehicle, and that was the reason for the delay.

7.         The ** provided photos of a fluid sample on October 31, 2022, with one showing metal debris in the fluid. The claim was then authorized, and the *** vendor's part ordered as the most cost effective repair pursuant to the terms of the ***.

8.         The vendor's part order confirmation was sent on November 1, 2022, with estimated delivery date of five business days, to be delivered on November 7, 2022. The customer was authorized rental on November 2, 2022, for six days due to the labor and the part delays pursuant to the terms of the ***. The ** was advised that proof of programming would need to be sent to the vendor's management when the unit arrived.

9.         The ** advised *** on November 7, 2022,that the part had not arrived. The vendor's update with tracking information was given to the **, advising that the part would arrive on November 8, 2022. The customer stated she needed additional rental, and the customer was authorized another day of rental and advised that the *** 's maximum rental had been authorized.

10.        The ** advised on November 11, 2022,that the part was installed and programming and stop tag procedures were completed; during that time, the ** discovered a leak coming from the front seal of the shipped unit.

The customer filed a complaint with the ********************** on November 12, 2022. The complaint appears to stem from claim delays and the use of used parts. Used parts are allowed as the most cost effective part option pursuant to Section F.8.of the ***. The **'s estimate included a used transmission that the ** was going to source. Prior to the vendor's part being delivered, the claim delays were due the inability to verify the cause of failure as the customer would not authorizing RDI. Further delays were caused by both repair facilities for not supplying the information required to move the claim forward. Rental was authorized for the maximum of the ***'s liability. The customer was not penalized for continued operation for driving the vehicle with a known transmission failure (an exclusionary condition under Section D.2.m. of the ***).

Based on the above, the claim was adjudicated correctly and in accordance with the terms of the ***. The vendor's part leak can be remedied with a new seal and the labor to install the seal can be authorized. There was no failure of the part besides the leaking seal. Rental was authorized correctly for *** maximum.

*** will authorize the repair with a new seal and the labor to install the seal pursuant to the terms of the ***. The customer may send copies of final, paid rental invoices for potential reimbursement. As any additional rental reimbursement would be outside the terms of the ***, the customer will be asked to sign a separate agreement.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Customer Answer
Date: 12/02/2022
To whom it may concern:

I am requesting some advice on handling the replacement repairs of my 2010 Lexus IS250 Transmission replacement through the American Auto Shield contract that I have been a member of since October 2019. I have filed a complaint before #******** My 2010 Lexus IS250 has been in the shop since October 6 ************************************************************************************** the car & test driven. The transmission was leaking fluids. So the repair shop requested another replacement for that damaged part. The repair shop was asked to send photos of the damaged transmission which they have as of 12/01/2022. AllI want is for AAS to send a legitimate working proper transmission to the shop so I can get my car returned back to me working properly as soon as possible..I am very dissatisfied with AAS and the long amount of time that it has taken to get this issue resolved. I am running out of options. I've had no form of transportation from 10/06/22 until present.

*****************************
************

Business Response
Date: 12/07/2022
The Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist") reviewed this claim.

The ** did provide photos for our review. A review of those photos showed there was no damage shown to the vendor shipped part provided by AAS. The ** is responsible for the leak in the transmission due to a failed seal provided by the ** or due to improper installation of the seal provided by the ** in the front pump of the transmission. The ** never stated there were any other issues with the vendor part other than a fluid leak, and documentation shows that the fluid leak was caused by the **. The ** is responsible for correcting the situation it caused. AAS has already provided a part and authorization for the repair.

The ** has not responded to the Specialist since the Specialist reached out.

As stated in our response to the complaint, the claim was adjudicated correctly and in accordance with the terms of the **** The vendor's part leak can be remedied with a new seal and the labor to install the seal can be authorized. AAS will authorize the repair with a new seal and the labor to install the seal pursuant to the terms of the ****

The customer is again advised that she may send copies of final, paid rental invoices for potential reimbursement. As any additional rental reimbursement would be outside the terms and coverage of the **** so the customer will be asked to sign a separate agreement.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Business Response
Date: 01/06/2023
The Legal Claims Specialist for American Auto Shield ("AAS") again reviewed this claim.

The customer was incorrectly advised by her repair facility (the "**")regarding the part. The correct part was sent to the **. That part was damaged by the ** when installing the part. There is a leak the ** refuses to fix, and it is coming from the seal that was replaced by the **. The part provided by AAS was not faulty, and this leak was caused by improper installation by the ** and/or by damage the ** caused when installing the part. *** has advised the ** that AAS would not provide any additional authorization other than what was already provided. This is the **'s issue and one the ** needs to rectify. Rather than assuming responsibility,the ** is blaming AAS. The current issue is not due to a failure of the sourced part as it was not damaged until after the **'s installation. There is nothing further AAS can offer as to the leaking seal.

The customer is again advised that she may send copies of final, paid rental invoices for potential reimbursement. Any potential rental reimbursement would be offered outside the terms and coverage of the **** and the customer will be asked to sign a separate agreement.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Customer Answer
Date: 01/13/2023

Complaint: 18395402

I am rejecting this response because:
AAS refuse to send the proper replacement part for my vehicle
Sincerely,

*****************************
Customer Answer
Date: 12/15/2022

Complaint: 18395402

I am rejecting this response because: the repair facility has stated the they would be more than happy to replace the seal, but the pump would just crack the seal again during the test drive. which is what they've relayed to AAS. I just need my vehicle repaired properly right now because it has been waiting on AAS to send the correct part. From October 6, 2022 until present.

Sincerely,
simply unacceptable.
*****************************
Business Response
Date: 01/23/2023
Better Business Bureau:

American Auto Shield has reviewed the arbitration offer in reference to complaint ID #******** (*****************************) and accepts the offer.

Sincerely,
American Auto Shield

Customer Answer
Date: 01/30/2023
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of Arbitration. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID .********, , and find that arbitration is necessary.
AAS has been ask by me & the ** to please just send a warranty replacement transmission so that the ** could repair my 2010 Lexus IS250 properly. I really don't understand why this has become an issue.
The replacement transmission has a defected pump which keeps cracking the seal doing the test drive once installed.
I have been without my vehicle since October 2022, payment are still being drafted from my financial institution monthly, with no satisfaction at all toward repairing my vehicle. I would like to seek a refund for my payments drafted from my account during 2022 & present.
Sincerely,
*****************************
Initial Complaint
Date:11/11/2022
Type:Order Issues
Status:
AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.
When I signed up, they said they would pay for the repairs. My fuel pump went out and they told me they would pay for it. I took it to the repair shop and they put a new one in. They told me the pump was still working when they took it out. I had to pay for the fuel pump because CarH3131343334303031**35H didn&#**;t. I had to pay $1500 for the repair even though they told me it would be taken care of. I called them before the repair was made. I have been with them for over a year. I was told the repair would be covered. I have already filed a complaint with CarH3131343334303031**35H.
Business Response
Date: 11/21/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("AAS") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on February 24, 2022. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage,benefits, and exclusions. The *** was canceled by the seller on November 11, 2022.

A pre-claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called AAS on September 8, 2022, seeking to check coverage for a fuel level sender and front SRS impact sensor. The ** was advised the parts were not covered by the *** (see Section B. of the ***). The customer then called on September 9, 2022, upset that the parts were not covered by the ***. He reported he had been told earlier in the week that the parts were covered. He further reported that the ** was installing a new fuel pump, something that had not been reported to AAS by the ** and had been told this would be covered. The customer reported the repair had been completed, and the customer was then told the claim could possibly be denied as the repair had been completed prior to authorization (Section D.2.a., Section F.5., and the bottom of each and every page of the ***).

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist"). There was never a claim started, but a pre-claim was denied as the failures reported were for components not covered by the *** (Section B. of the ***). This was the correct adjudication.

The ** initially reported a fuel level sender as the failure point but then reported that the fuel pump itself had failed. Often the sending unit cannot be replaced by itself and the pump must be replaced. The pump itself is also not listed for coverage on this ***; therefore, the claim is not coverable.

The customer reports that he was advised in a prior phone call with AAS that the claim was called in for the fuel pump and the claim would be covered. The Specialist pulled all calls associated with the customer's telephone number and was unable to find anything stating this. The only call found by the Specialist was a call in which the customer was advised the fuel pump was not covered.

The Specialist called the customer and left a voice mail message advising the customer that the Specialist was unable to find the call in which he was provided information that the fuel pump was covered. If the customer can provide information regarding the call (date, number, caller, etc.), the Specialist will review that information to try to locate the call. As of the writing of this response, AAS has found no evidence of anyone at AAS advising the customer the fuel pump would be covered.

The customer also filed a complaint with the ********************** against the seller of the ***. The seller offered to refund the customer for three months of monthly payments. Nothing in addition will be offered by **** The customer may accept this offer by writing the legal department for AAS at *************************************** or by notifying the BBB. This offer must be accepted by the customer within seven (7) days of the filing of this response or the offer will be considered null and void.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/10/2022
Type:Service or Repair Issues
Status:
ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.

Complaint: 18389668

I am rejecting this response because:

Sincerely,

****** And ************************* and we will still pay on our premium we have paid our premium we didnt pay it this month but we paid My husband ended up going and just now going to pick the car back up because we cant afford to pay the money to get it fixed and thats what we were paying the extra money every month in case something happens so we wasnt for sure if we should pay a premium because theyre not fixing the car so we had to bring it back home so we didnt pay them this month but we have been paying them every since until this month I would like to get this problem taken care of and if not they didnt want it on or the warranty then they should be paying us back our money that we pay them for coverage and our claim number is 206-4027 in our truck was a GMC ****** 2011 Also another claim number that they gave us from Auto shield is MFR3937202 thank you whatever you can do to help us we are greatly appreciate it Or see if theyre responsible for fixing repairs to our truck
Business Response
Date: 11/15/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("***") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on November 15, 2021. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage,benefits, and exclusions.

The customer initially called *** on March ******, and a pre-claim was started. The customer stated all lights were illuminating and the vehicle was leaking oil. He stated the problem began approximately one week earlier. There was a rumbling in the motor, and the customer tried to learn where the oil was going, thinking perhaps the tail pipe. He checked with one mechanic who told him all the oil seals were starting to fail. No diagnosis had been performed yet, and he had questions on the claim process. He stated the breakdown date was February 23,2022. No mileage was provided. There is no indication that a claim was opened for this concern, and there is no indication the issue was addressed.

This claim was then opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called *** on July 22, 2022. The breakdown date was February 23, 2022. The ** reported the vehicle had been driven to the ** and the customer had several complaints: (1) The transmission was slamming into gear. (2) The vehicle was leaking oil. The ** stated that the oil pan gasket exhaust bolts were broken and an exhaust manifold and oil pan gasket were needed. (3) ********* steering was not working. The ** found a power steering fluid leak and failure and asked for multiple steering items: steering gear, a power steering pump, and a power steering hose. The ** was advised that the *** did not cover steering and all those items were denied as parts not covered by the ***. The ** reported the mileage was *******, which indicated an average daily mileage of 220 miles per day. The **'s online estimate asked for a transmission, a transmission line, a transfer case gasket,a power steering pump (not covered by the ***), steering gear (not covered by the ***), a power steering line (not covered by the ***), oil cooler lines (not covered by the ***), an exhaust manifold gasket, and an oil pan gasket. No diagnostic information was provided at the time. The *** representative noted that the customer originally called *** on March 9, 2022, with several of the same issues, stating these problems had been happening since February 2022.

The ** advised *** on July 28, 2022, that the vehicle had been driven in with oil and transmission leaks that were dripping. The exhaust manifold bolts were broken. The ** reported no diagnostic trouble codes ("DTCs"). The transmission fluid level was low and the transmission lines were leaking. The was metal in the transmission pan. The ** declined to provide photos and requested an inspection. *** left a voice mail message for the customer on this date, asking for copies of service and maintenance records.

The fully assembled vehicle was inspected on August 3, 2022, by an independent, third-party inspection service. The inspector found the transmission was very low on fluid and had a severe leak at the transmission cooler line with the engine running. Fluid was pouring out and red in color (not burnt or metallic). The **'s technician pulled the transmission pan and found minor metallic powder on the transmission pan magnet. The inspector was shown two transmission codes: P0842 (transmission fluid pressure switch 1 circuit low voltage) and P2723 (pressure control solenoid 5 stuck off). The transmission was making a whining noise from the front pump with the engine running. ********* steering pump was also making a growling noise, and the fluid was empty and leaking from the power steering rack at the right bellows. The exhaust was leaking at both exhaust manifolds at the rear of the engine. The exhaust manifold bolts at the rear were loose and appeared to be broken and holding on by the heat shield. ********** was leaking from the engine oil pan gasket to a drip state with heavy, long-term dirt and grease buildup. The inspector's findings were consistent with a failure of the transmission cooler line, causing a run low condition and causing damages to the transmission; a material failure of the power steering rack at the rights seals and bellows, causing a run low condition and possible damages to the pump; a failure of the exhaust manifold bots due to rust and corrosion, causing an exhaust leak; and a material, long-term failure of the engine oil pan gasket, causing the fluid to leak.

*** reviewed the inspection report on August 5,2022. The photos provided in the report showed evidence of an excessive amount of corrosion and rust on the undercarriage and the drive train components. It was evident from the inspection report that a leak at the transmission cooler lines resulted in a failure of the transmission due to run low and lack of lubrication together with continued operation of the vehicle with a known issue. The claim was denied pursuant to the exclusions found in Section D.2.m. (continued operation), D.2.n. (a covered part damaged by a non-covered part), D.2.p. (rust and corrosion, lack of proper fluids), and D.2.q. (pre-existing conditions) of the ***. *** advised the customer of the denial on August 9, 2022.

The customer disputed the denial and stated that the vehicle sat for months as he was in the hospital and the vehicle was not being driven. The customer was asked to provide service records to clarify the mileage situation. The customer stated there was no information to provide regarding mileage, and *** advised that it would also review a bill of sale. The customer stated again that he had no service records or proof of mileage to provide. The claim remained denied.

The claim was reviewed by a Senior Legal Claims Specialist for ***, an ASE-Certified Master Mechanic (the "Specialist"). There were multiple issues called in on the claim. The claim was correctly denied for parts not listed for coverage by the *** (Section B. of the ***) and a non-covered part damaging a covered part (Section D.2.n. of the ***).

The first repair concerned broken bolts on the exhaust manifold. The manifold and bolts are not covered by this contract (Section B. of the ***). There is also a concern for multiple failures on the power steering system. There is no steering coverage on this contract, so these are also excluded.

The one part that was considered for coverage was the transmission failure. The claim was started for this concern; after the inspection was received, the repair was denied for the transmission cooler lines failing and leaking out transmission fluid and causing a run low condition. The cooler lines are not listed for coverage on this contract, thereby excluding the repair due to a non-covered part damaging a covered part (Section D.2.n. of the ***). This was correctly denied pursuant to the express terms and exclusions of the ***.

In addition,the start mileage on the contract is clearly inaccurate. Records have been requested to fix this issue but have not been provided. The contract start is November 15, 2021, at a reported mileage of *******. The breakdown was reported as February 23, 2022,with mileage of *******. This comes out to 220 miles per day. The CarFax report shows a service on June 25, 2021, at ******* miles. Recalculating the start mileage, based on verifiable records, could affect the contract purchase price, but would not affect the claim outcome. This mileage discrepancy issue would need to be submitted for review. The customer provided a tow invoice; however, towing was performed by the roadside service provided by the ***; therefore, the *** has already paid the maximum amount for towing provided under the ***.

With that stated, *** is willing to resolve this dispute amicably and offers to instruct the seller of the *** to cancel the *** and refund to the customer one-half of the payments made for the ***. This offer must be accepted within seven days of the filing of this response or the offer will be null and void. The customer should accept this offer by writing the **************** at *************************************** or by responding to the BBB.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Customer Answer
Date: 12/23/2022
Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Sincerely,

****** & *************************
Customer Answer
Date: 01/18/2023
We were paying for them to if we had any car problems for the transmission a motor to get the car fixed and then we when we had the problems they didnt refuse to fix the car a truck Im sorry 2011 GMC ****** and motor of the trans went out and they all said to save the motor and they did not want to fix the truck at all so Our old complaint number is and they did not. They said they were going to refund my money and they never refund our money. We havent received anything yet. Oh complaint number is ********. We would like to get this resolved and get our money back please
Business Response
Date: 01/18/2023
The customers, on December 23, 2022, accepted the offer of American Auto Shield ("AAS") to cancel the *************** Contract (the ****** and refund to the customer one-half of the payments made for this VSC. As this refund is outside the terms of the **** the customers were required to execute and deliver a separate agreement before the refund could be processed. That agreement was sent to the customers on December 23, 2022, via a secure, electronic signing platform called PandaDoc. AAS has since sent emails to the customers on December 29, 2022, and January 3, 2023, sending a reminder and link to the agreement. There has been no response from the customers. The agreement was sent to the customers' email address provided in the BBB complaint, but the customers have not yet opened or viewed the agreement.

Would the customers please check their spam and junk folders for the agreement and please confirm with AAS that the email address provided in the BBB complaint is the correct email address. AAS will send the agreement by hard copy if that is more convenient for the customers. The customers are asked to contact AAS legal department directly to provide their preferred form of communication.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Customer Answer
Date: 01/20/2023

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Sincerely,

****** And *************************

I would like to know if they were sending ** a check by mail if so, the address is **** State Rd., 17 *************** 46511
Initial Complaint
Date:11/10/2022
Type:Order Issues
Status:
ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.

***********************

P.O.BOX 1211

*******,******* 32802

***********************

November 18, 2022

RE: 18389087

Cheyenne T                                                                    ***************************************
Resolutions Specialist, Trust Advocate

Better Business Bureau

p: ************

bbb.org Start With Trust

REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION AT CORPORATION EXPENSE/W/

REPLY TO RESPONSE

In reply to *************************************** I totally disagree with the

response for reasons set forth herein:

1)In reference to subparagraph one(1)of Liberty STF response I was not provided

with a copy of (VSCs) shortly after purchase December 28,2021. The contract

became available to me on or about November 1,2022. Liberty STF

representative has provided no credible proof contracts are made available to

consumers at initial sale for validity of conscious level.Fla.Stat.672.302(1).

2) I complaintive paid $275.36 in taxes to repair shop as identified within record

presented before agency. The additional taxes is not authorized by contract

attached herein. I pay $7.80 taxes on contract renewal of $120.00 each month

and the additional taxes for repairs by transmission is prohibited by

Fla.Stat.212.06(4)(2011). The contract only requires payment of a $100.00 d*****

deductible as identified at section F (10)(see attached contract).

3)The car rental from Enterprise October 18,2022 to November 8,2022 was

authorized by Liberty STF on behalf of car shield at a discount rate of $41.48 a

day. Total amount $984.06 included with additional taxes $60.06. The taxes is

prohibited by Fla.Stat.212.06(4)(2011).The administrator for Liberty STF approved

car rental discount with contractual Enterprise Rental agency.(see attached car

shield rewards agreement with Enterprise Rental for all contract holders under

monthly renewal plan)

(a)Further the car shield contract approves $280.00 for service hours that exceeds 4 hours. The administrator has authorized **** hours that qualifies me for the additional funds towards rental reimbursement in contract.(see attached contract that authorizes additional $280.00 for delays etc.at section C 2).

(b)The attached car shield contract at section C 2 by administrator approves $10,000 .00 liability can be used towards rental reimbursement.

   4)Liberty STF failure to comply with contract identified herein represents a

breach; and a violation of ******* fair deceptive trade act ******* Fla.Stat.

    5)The answer provided by Liberty STF represents a complete failure to adhere

with attached contract not authorized by ******* law 627.759 ***.Stat.

     6)Car Shield operates in **************** and I have a right as a citizen to

adequate assurance of performance through contract. The failure to comply with

terms of contract through representatives of car shield substantiate a breach of

corporation ministerial duty owe to members.672.609(1)Fla.Stat.

     7)Liberty STF representatives failure to adhere with contract terms has cause

me damages in amount stated. Which gives me the right to seek judicial review in

this state against corporation whom operates its business in

*******.48.193(1)(a)1.6.a.7Fla.Stat.

     8)This is a request that Liberty STF agree to pay Arbitration fees and that I be

reimburse for amount stated in additional claim of $984.06. Which includes taxes

paid in amount of $335.42. for a total of $1319.48.

     9)That this matter be set for Arbitration as agreed within contract at section M

by Liberty STF.

                                                                                           ***********************

                                                                                            ***********************
Business Response
Date: 11/14/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, Liberty STF, Inc.("Liberty") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties,or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers. Liberty works with American Auto Shield to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on December 28, 2021. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage, benefits, and exclusions.

This claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called AAS on October 17, 2022. The ** reported the vehicle had been driven to the ** and the customer complained that the vehicle had no power when accelerating. The ** reported the transmission fluid was full and burnt. The ** reported two diagnostic trouble codes: P00746 (pressure control solenoid A performance/stuck off) and P2859 (clutch A pressure disengagement performance). The ** diagnosed an internal transmission failure.

The customer asked about rental on October *******, and was advised of the provisions in the *** regarding rental (Section C.2.). He was advised that rental reimbursement was based on labor hours, with a maximum amount per day and a maximum amount per claim. He was advised that the maximum amount provided by the *** may not be paid and he may have some out-of-pocket expenses (including taxes) for rental. The customer stated that would be fine and that he needed a rental vehicle.

Service records were provided on October 21,2022, but no inspection was required. AAS verified coverage and verified the failure through the **'s diagnosis. AAS authorized **** hours in total and verified a rebuilt transmission was the most cost effective option. The ** requested 1.0 hours for diagnosis and was advised that 0.3 was verified as the labor time for the diagnosis.

The customer called AAS on November 1, ************ he set up rental himself and was seeking reimbursement. He was again advised of the rental provisions in the *** and advised that the claim qualified for two days of rental. The customer continued to request more rental time and was again advised of the provisions of the *** and that the labor hours of **** qualified the claim for two days of rental. There were no delays caused by an inspection,shipping, etc. The customer then referred to the limit of liability section of the *** (Section K.) and claimed this section entitled him to full reimbursement. The customer was advised that the limit of liability applied only to repairs to the vehicle and would not apply towards rental.

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist"). The customer's complaint revolves around rental that was not authorized for the repair process. The customer, in the complaint, quoted part of the *** language regarding rental.

There were no delays around this claim from the start date to the day it was authorized, a total of three days from October 18 to October 21, 2022. The total labor hours show there are only two days of rental at the maximum amount per day that can be authorized pursuant the terms of the *** (Section C.2.). The Specialist did not see anything in the claim notes where any delays were caused by waiting for estimates, photos, or inspections. The final invoice was not received until November 8, 2022, giving the ** more than two weeks for the repairs to be performed.

This claim was adjudicated correctly and in accordance with the terms of the ***. The customer's issue with rental is not from the claims process; rather, it is from the delays caused by, and associated with the ** getting the parts and performing the repairs. Further, as the customer was advised on November 10, 2022, the limit of liability does not apply towards rental but only applies towards repair of the vehicle. AAS can offer nothing further at this time.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/10/2022
Type:Service or Repair Issues
Status:
ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.
You may close the case, if it serves the purpose of letting individuals know that the company did do what was necessary according to the contract. Thank you. Be blessed.ntract not being honored a financial burden have arise. I needed my vehicle so i paid the money, but I'm slowly catching up on things i had to sacrifice to pay for this large bill. I have attached the information written up by ************ , the American Auto shield Adjuster, please review.
Business Response
Date: 11/16/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("AAS") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on December 12, 2020. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage,benefits, and exclusions.

This claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called AAS on May 25, 2021. The ** reported the vehicle had been driven to the ** and the customer complained that the engine was shaking and the check engine light was illuminated. The ** scanned and found a diagnostic trouble code (a "DTC") P0306 (a cylinder #6 misfire). The ** determined the issue was an ignition coil and switched the coil to another cylinder. The misfire code then moved to the other cylinder, which indicated it was a bad coil. An authorization was created on May 25, 2021, for replacement of the ignition coil using the **'s parts as the most cost effective option. This would put the part warranty on the ** and eliminate shipping costs. The customer would possibly qualify for two days of rental.

The repairs were performed, and the ** called on June 5, 2021, to report that the engine was failing after the initial repairs. The ** stated on June 8, 2021,that while repairing the vehicle, the **, by using a borescope, found coolant flowing into the block. AAS tried to reach the ** to discuss the failure but was unable to do so. One of the employees at the ** advised on June 9, 2021, that the representative handling the repair was off until the next day.

The customer provided her statement of the issue on June 8, 2022. She stated the breakdown occurred one week before taking the vehicle to the **, May 18,2021. The check engine light and a tire light were illuminated and white smoke was emitting from the rear of the vehicle. She stated she was told by her daughter that the vehicle had issues, so she took the vehicle to the shop, when she was told she needed a coil. The shop ordered the coil and replaced the coil. She picked up the vehicle and shortly thereafter, she saw white smoke coming out the tail pipe. She took the vehicle back to the shop, where it had been ever since.

AAS spoke with the ** on June 10, 2021. The ** advised it found another DTC, P1285 (cylinder head over temperature), a code that usually appears when a vehicle overheats. The ** advised that at all times, coolant would leak into cylinder #6. The ** stated the customer brought the vehicle to the ** frequently and it could provide service records. AAS arranged for an inspection of the vehicle.

The fully assembled vehicle was inspected on June 11, 2021, by an independent, third-party inspection service. No DTCs were verified as they had been cleared. The #6 spark plug had raw coolant on it. The #6 cylinder sprayed coolant when cranked over. The inspector reported that further tear down was required to confirm the cause of failure. The inspector observed no other failures due to the limited tear down. The inspector's findings were consistent with an internal engine failure to cylinder #6 and there must be a tear down to verify the cause of failure and the extent of damage.

The adjuster tried to reach the ** on June 12,2021, to ask the customer to obtain the customer's authorization for RDI (remove,disassemble, and inspect - a tear down) to verify whether the issue was overheating of the head gasket or overheating of the vehicle. AAS reached the ** on June 15, 2021, and advised that head gaskets or any damage due to overheating would not be covered by the ***, and this determination was required to move forward. The fact that there was coolant going into cylinder #6 indicated it was more than likely this was the issue. The ** stated it would discuss RDI with the customer. The customer called AAS that day for a claim update and was advised that she would need to authorize RDI. The customer then stated she would contact the ** to discuss this with the **.

The adjuster tried to reach the customer on June 16, 2021, but was unable to reach her. The adjuster went on leave for ten days after that time, and the claim did not moved. The adjuster reached the customer on June 30, 2021, at which time the customer advised the adjuster that she learned that ***** had big issues with the engines and ***** would give her a new engine (installations, parts, and labor) for a certain amount. She stated she was going to cancel the *** because it was not working for her and she wanted to drop the claim. The adjuster then called the ** to advise the ** that the claim would be marked inactive as the customer was dropping the claim and she would be dealing directly with the ** for the engine.

The ** returned the adjuster's call on July 1,2021, but the call was disconnected. The customer then called the adjuster, asking why he had called the **. The adjuster explained that he wanted to advise the ** that because the customer was going to pay ***** to repair the vehicle, the claim would be marked inactive. The customer stated that she had coverage in her *** for gaskets, and the adjuster explained that if the failure were due to a material failure of the head gaskets, the repair would be covered. If the failure was due to overheating, the repair would not be covered. The adjuster explained this was why AAS needed RDI (removal of the heads) to move forward. The customer then stated again that she did not want to continue with the claim and she was going to pay for the new engine out of her pocket.

The customer spoke with AAS on July 2, ********* the demand for RDI was again explained to her. The ** had refused to perform any RDI and the customer stated she was not paying any more money. She then requested a copy of the inspection report. The adjuster determined that AAS could not deny the claim without learning the initial cause of failure from the ** as there was a potential credit towards the repair. The customer stated she learned this was a common issue with the engine and either AAS or ***** would give her a new engine. The customer was provided a copy of the inspection report on July 6, 2021. She stated she would take the inspection report to the ** to learn the situation on the **'s end.

It was determined on August 16, 2021, that there was no other resolution but to deny the claim. The ** and the customer were unwilling to have the required RDI performed to learn whether the repair would be covered or whether the failure was due to overheating, an exclusion from coverage. The ignition coil that had been requested was a misdiagnosis by the ** and the issue was always coolant going into cylinder #6. The claim was denied pursuant to Section D.1.p. of the *** (overheat).

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist"), who determined the claim adjudication required modification. The claim was denied due to overheat and rust. A tear down was requested to demonstrate that the failure was not caused by overheat or rust. The claim was denied when the customer and the ** refused the tear down. The terms of the *** provide that a failure must be demonstrated.

With that said, in order to assist the customer, the Specialist will authorize replacement of the engine assembly. The Specialist will also look at potential coverage for components not listed for coverage by the ***. As that potential coverage will be outside the terms of the ***, the customer will be asked to sign a separate agreement. The Specialist will reach out to the customer to discuss the authorization and terms.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/10/2022
Type:Order Issues
Status:
AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.
My car a 2012 ******* MKZ has been at a repair facility (Ledgewood Transmission) since 10/18/2022. American Auto Shield (contract # MRF4311820) requested documents of Maintenace on the vehicle that they did receive, they also received a Towing record & also the repair estimates. This company has held up reviewing the records for several days and refusing to send payment for repairs to the facility. I need my car fixed ASAP. I pay my monthly payments to Car shield for this insurance and the car is well maintained so there should be no issues with having this repair done and paid for in full. Every time I call American Auto Shield My calls are disconnected or I'm told that the claim will be reviewed and ill have an answer but now 10 days later and calls every day still no movement on this claim. please help me get this claim moving and repairs done to my vehicle
Business Response
Date: 11/14/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("***") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on August 24, 2022. The *** had a wait period of twenty days and 500 miles or forty days and 250 miles. The mileage provided by the customer at the time of *** purchase was ******. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage,benefits, and exclusions.

This claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called *** on October 27, 2022. The ** reported the vehicle had been towed to the ** and the breakdown date was October 20, 2022. The reported mileage was ******. The customer complained that the transmission slipped and the vehicle would not move. The seller called *** on November 1, 2022, to escalate the claim. The seller was advised that *** had not yet received the **'s estimate. *** requested that the ** provide its estimate so the claim could move forward.

The customer provided his statement of the issue on November 3, 2022. He had owned the vehicle for seven years. He stated the vehicle had been towed by AAA. The customer stated the breakdown date was October 27, 2022. The customer was advised at that time that *** had received the estimate but one of the service records he provided was missing the ***. He was instructed to write in the *** and resend the record. The customer spoke with several *** representatives during the period of November 3 through November 10, 2022, and became argumentative when service records were requested. The customer became angry when *** asked for the service records and the tow receipt as required by the ***. The *** representatives had to disconnect several calls with the customer. The customer then submitted a complaint with the Better Business Bureau on November 10, 2022. As the customer filed a ******************** complaint, his claim was paused so the legal department for *** could perform its review.

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for *** (the "Specialist"). The facts of the claim are as follows:

1.            The ** called *** on October 27, 2022, to start a claim for a transmission failure. The ** was advised an estimate and a verified cause of failure would be needed.

2.            The customer called the seller on November ******, to advise that ** was waiting for inspection of the vehicle, and the seller reached out to *** to check the claim status and to escalate the claim. The seller was advised the ** had not even provided an estimate at that point. The customer was then advised the ** needed to provide its estimate in order to move the claim forward.

3.            The ** provided its estimate on November 3,2022. *** asked the customer to provide service records as well as a tow invoice. The customer stated the vehicle had been towed under his mother's account. At this time, the customer advised that he was going to take legal action due to claim delays. The customer was advised again that service records were needed.

4.            The customer called on November 4, 2022, for an update on the claim. The customer stated he needed a rental car as vehicle was at the ** since October 18, 2022. According to a letter submitted by the customer,the vehicle was towed to ** using AAA on October 18, 2022, from an unknown residence. This was a letter on an email with a date but no invoice or signature included, and limited vehicle information. The breakdown date was unable to be verified using the records provided.

5.            The customer called *** on November 7, ******** a claim update. The customer was advised no verifiable tow invoice had been received. The customer called in again on November ******, stating the ** wanted the vehicle removed from the **. The customer called back on November *******, demanding that someone call the ** with an approval and was transferred to the escalations department. The escalations department advised the customer that legal would be reviewing the claim. The customer called in two more times and was advised the claim was still being reviewed.

6.            *********** record dated April 21, 2022, showed an oil change with no mileage listed. Another service record from the same date from the same ** for an oil change had no mileage and had the *** hand-written in. Neither of these were verifiable service records and showed no mileage. *********** record provided from February 7, 2020, with mileage of ****** is too old to show the current mileage. Pursuant to the CarFax report pulled by ***,the state inspection mileage reported was ****** and there are no records reflected since April 1, 2021. The inception mileage reported at the time of *** sale on August 24, 2022, was ******; this was incorrect according to the CarFax report. Mileage is reported on the current estimate from the current ** as ******. If the reported inception mileage was correct, this means the vehicle traveled 133 miles since April 1, 2021; this would place the vehicle in the waiting period.

The customer's complaint primarily stems from his dispute with the necessary claim investigation process. Delays were not excessive in this case as the claim was only started on November 1, 2022; this was a reasonable timeframe to get requested information sent and processed. *********** records provided were insufficient to move claim forward.

After a detailed review, the Specialist has determined the claim is adjudicated correctly as a denial for a failure occurring during or before the *** waiting period was fulfilled. Based on service records provided and the CarFax report, it would be impossible for the vehicle to have traveled even the 250 miles required to fulfill the waiting period as the vehicle only traveled 133 miles since April 1, 2021. This information makes it evident that the breakdown occurred prior to coverage. There is no evidence confirming that the vehicle was even driven after the *** was purchased. No service records were provided that could verify the mileage requirement was met before the *** became effective. Therefore, based on the available documentation and evidence, the vehicle is in the waiting period, and any claims are excluded from coverage.

With that stated, *** is willing to resolve this dispute amicably and offers to instruct the seller of the *** to cancel the *** and fully refund to the customer the payments made for the ***. This offer must be accepted within seven days of the filing of this response or the offer will be null and void. The customer should accept this offer by writing the **************** at *************************************** or by responding to the BBB.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/09/2022
Type:Service or Repair Issues
Status:
AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.
I have purchased extended warranty from American auto shield back in early October 2022. On November 2 I had a transmission problem so I called a repair shop and they towed my car to the shop. After my repair shop try to claim from American Auto Shield to fix my transmission, my extended warranty denied the ************ said that this is a pre-existent problem. My extended warranty gave me 20 days time frame and ***** mileage to drive to make my insurance effective. I met all these requirements. On October 31 I had my vehicle inspected under ************** and my vehicle passed inspection. I had no pre-existing problem in my car, if I had problem with my transmission, I wouldnt be passing my ************** inspection. I drove **** miles after I bought this extended warranty and time frame is more than a month. Still, they denied my claim and they accusing that I had transmission problems from past which is not true. Otherwise I wouldnt been passed my state inspection. Also, my repair shop who our transmission expired. They said to American auto shield that it doesnt look like a pre-existing problem. American auto shield, still denying my claim and making me to pay for **** dollar worth of work. I paid $170 each month to American auto shield for my extended warranty service but I am not getting what I have paid for. The person who talk to me from American auto shield. He was very rude and he didnt even listen what I had to say. I want to bring a lawsuit against American auto shield in the court. This is not acceptable. I cannot go to work or school because my car is still sitting in the auto shop more than one week, and I have no money to pay for transmission service. It is American auto shields responsibility to come and inspect their customers vehicle when they provide extended warranty. When a customer in trouble and claim for services, American auto shield cannot say that this is a pre-existing problem after we meet all the requirements. This is a fraud!!!!!
Business Response
Date: 11/14/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("AAS") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on October 3, 2022. The *** had a wait period of twenty days and 500 miles or forty days and 250 miles. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase.The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage, benefits, and exclusions.

This claim was opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the ***** when it called AAS on November 1, 2022 (thirty days after purchase of the *** and ten days after expiration of the wait period). The ** reported the vehicle had been towed to the ** and the customer complained that the vehicle would not move. The ** stated the fluid was full with no contamination. There were no leaks,no noises, and no diagnostic trouble codes ("DRCs"). The ** reported a belt and pulley failure and stated there was an internal transmission failure.

The customer provided his statement of the issue on November 2, 2022. He had owned the vehicle for more than one year. The customer stated that he tried to start the vehicle on November 1, 2022, but the vehicle would not move forward or backward. The customer had the vehicle towed to the **. The customer advised he did not have service records as he went to a small shop, paid cash, and was not provided any receipts. The customer stated he would attempt to obtain records.

AAS asked the ** on November 2, 2022, if it had the scan tool capability to pull freeze frame data from the vehicle and was assured that the ** had the scan tool. AAS advised the ** that the next step would be removal of the transmission pan, with the customer's authorization, for confirmation of any internal mechanical failure. (The ** stated on November 4, 2022, that it did not have a scan tool and could not obtain freeze frame data.)

Service records were received from the customer on November 2, 2022. The records were missing the customer's full name and mileage, and *** advised the customer that the records would have to be sent again with the missing information included. A further review of the records showed they were not verifiable and of questionable authenticity. The records contained no odometer reading,last name, or contact information. One record dated September 5, 2022, had an invoice number of **** and a tax rate of *****% on parts and labor. Another record dated October 26, 2022, was an invoice numbered **** and showed a tax rate of ****% on parts and labor. As these records were determined to be unverifiable, the customer was asked to provide a copy of the state inspection dated October 26, 2022.

The vehicle was then inspected by an independent, third-party inspection service on November 7, 2022. The transmission was removed and was on the bench. The ** pulled the transmission pan and found heavy metal on all three magnets. The fluid had been drained and was dark. The battery was dead, and there were no diagnostic trouble codes ("DTCs"). The inspector was unable to provide any findings as to the cause of failure but reported the transmission was full of metal.

The inspection report was reviewed by AAS on November 8, 2022. The report provided no pictures of the odometer or lube sticker and provided no DTCs or freeze frame data. The photos in the report showed an excessive amount of fine and large metal debris built up on the transmission pan magnets and on the filter housing. These photos were consistent with a long-term failure and inconsistent with the time the vehicle had been in coverage. The claim was denied pursuant to General Exclusions, Paragraph 3 (pre-existing conditions) and Paragraph 21.a. (continued operation).

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for AAS (the "Specialist"), who determined the claim adjudication required modification. There was insufficient evidence to support a claim denial based on the exclusion of pre-existing condition. The denial was based on an inspection report showing large amounts of metal debris and large chunks of metal that likely originated from the *** belt or chain. The customer provided service records, but they offered nothing verifiable and were of little assistance.

The Specialist has determined to move the claim to authorization status and discussed authorization totals with the ** on November 11, 2022. The claim was authorized for the repairs with a waiver of the deductible as a gesture of goodwill. The Specialist has not yet spoken with the customer regarding the authorization and has left messages for a return call. AAS requests that the customer return the Specialists call so that AAS can assist with moving this claim to full resolution.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/09/2022
Type:Service or Repair Issues
Status:
ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
Resolved:
The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
Unresolved:
The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
Answered:
The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
Unanswered:
The business failed to respond to the dispute.
Unpursuable:
BBB is unable to locate the business.

Complaint
I am rejecting this response because: there is no way of me knowing that it had an issue with the engine. American Auto Shield (AAS) and Car Shield(CS) did not inform me of this clause in the contract prior to me purchasing it. I never had an issue with the vehicle until it stopped working. My husband took the car in to get serviced on a regular basis keeping up with the schedule maintenance with no indication that it was ever misfiring or the engine light was on. I have two certified mechanics that works on Range Rovers tell me that it is no way of knowing because they said the part that the timing chain rides on broke and when I started my vehicle that is when it broke. I only had it running for two minutes and that is when it shut off completely. The reason why I towed it to Range Rover ********* because my regular mechanic from ****************** was 3 weeks behind so I took it to Land Rover ********* because it was close and they are specialists on Range Rovers. I have been out thousands of dollars on rental cars because I have been waiting on AAS since March 2022 when I made the claim. They have been sending me adjuster after adjuster through the year because their employees were terminated, which makes my claim wait. The previous manager at Land ************************ was fired due to not performing up to his responsibilities. He is the one who first told AAS that the car over heated. The car did not over heat and we found that out because Land Rover ********* bought in a specialist to check what the problem was because it was giving false readings that is why they thought it over heated. We found out that it was the timing chain and the timing chain caused values in the engine to mess up that is why they told AAS that the cars engine is still god but for safety reasons and due to the chain scrapping they suggested to change the motor because the engine stills runs. On top of that each time a new adjuster came in they asked Land Rover ********* to break down the vehicle to see what the cause was and to see how much damaged was caused by the timing chain breaking. Each break down is $5500 and that is 3 break downs. So AAS is asking me to cover the repairs and cover each breakdown of the engine. I really feel like they do not want to spend that much for a new motor or parts and that is why they denied the claim. There is no way of knowing the timing chain was a problem because I never saw the check engine light on or neither has the certified mechanic I had working on it. I would like for car shield to pay for the repairs and I would like my money back for the length of the contract because I am out money due to car rentals being purchased because AAS could never keep anyone long enough to finish the claim before being fired so I had to wait almost a whole year to see if the claim was denied or not. It is not fair to me to have to have all the burden when AAS is as fault. They should have had escalated my claim due to the amount of time I was waiting on AAS to handle my claim not being pushed off every time because I called in a lot so they knew it was a serious matter. This is false advertising because every thing I had in my contract is covered. Even service manager at Range Rover who has been with the company for over 30 years said it was just a timing chain issue no fault to the driver. They stated they have seen it before a few times.

Sincerely,

********************************to check for any scrapes. I also have affidavits from mechanics that worked on my vehicle before for rountine check *** and oil changes and after it stopped working, saying that it was no way of knowing it was a problem until the car stopped working and wouldn't turn over because its inside the engine that was the problem. The car didn't give me any messages about the problem either. I sent a letter in for arbitration as stated on the policy in Sept of 2022 and after talking to Ameican Auto Shield they stated that the BBB and Amercian Auto Shield denied my arbitration request which is strange because the Rep for BBB said all I had to do was contact them and file a complaint on this website. American Auto Shield does not state this in the policy. They are unorganized, and are ripping people off; I know they just don't want to pay for another engine due the to timing chain popping and it scraped the inside of the engine. I want to go straight to arbitration.
Business Response
Date: 11/15/2022
Thank you for bringing this customers concerns to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

As an initial matter, American Auto Shield ("***") does not sell contracts, insurance, extended warranties, or warranties. Sales of vehicle service contracts ("***s") are handled by independent sellers, and *** serves only to administer the repair claims. In this instance, the customer purchased a month-to-month *** on February 8, 2022. The inception mileage was 113,825. The *** had a wait period of twenty days and 500 miles or forty days and 250 miles. A copy of the customer's *** was provided to the customer shortly after purchase. The sales call and the first page of text encourage all *** holders to read their contract. The *** has clearly stated coverage, benefits, and exclusions.

The customer submitted a pre-claim on March *******, stating that her vehicle was at her chosen repair facility. She reported that the starter was making a noise and the vehicle would not start. This claim was then opened by the customer's chosen repair facility (the "**")when it called *** on March 30, 2022. The ** advised that the vehicle had been towed to the ** and the engine was locked up and seized. The ** called *** on April 8, 2022, and reported the cause of failure was overheat to the locked engine. The ** reported there was coolant everywhere under the hood. The customer was advised of a leak the previous July. *** advised the ** the claim was denied. The customer called *** on April 11, ******** stated that a regular mechanic at the ** performed the diagnosis and thought the cause of failure was overheat. There were no signs of leaks, and the ** asked for an inspection. The customer was told by the ** that the timing chain was wedged up into the motor, causing the engine to fail.

The seller of the *** called *** on June 10,2022, asking if the ** could call *** with a different cause of failure. The seller was advised the claim was still considered a denied claim due to overheat. The ** then called *** on July 1, 2022, stating that it had completed some tear down ("***" - remove, disassemble, and inspect) to verify the failure. The ** stated the chain tensioner on the driver's side bank had failed. *** then scheduled an inspection on July 7, 2022.

The vehicle was inspected by an independent,third-party inspection service on July 13, 2022. The overall condition of the vehicle was fair. The intake manifold, left side valve cover, and timing cover had been removed. The inspector observed slight varnish in the engine but no sludge or discolored parts. The inspector could not verify any oil leaks at the time. The inspector could not verify any diagnostic trouble codes ("***s") due to disassembly. The left side chain had excessive play. The left side chain tensioner plunger was collapsed. The inspector was able to push the plunger in by hand. This could cause the valve to hit the piston tops. The inspector could not verify any valve damage at the time without further disassembly. No other faults were verified during the inspection. The inspector's findings were the left side timing chain tensioner appeared to have failed, consistent with an internal fault. This allowed the timing chain play, which can cause the chain to jump time and allow valves to hit the piston tops.

*** tried to reach the ** on July 20, 2022, but the service advisor was on vacation. The ** then called *** on July 28, 2022,for a claim update but the call was disconnected. The customer was advised on August 1, ********* the ** needed to call the adjuster to move the claim forward. *** would need to see what failed inside the engine to justify replacing the engine. The ** wanted to replace the engine due to a loose timing chain and/or actuator failure. *** would need to see damage to the valves due to contacting the pistons to justify replacing the engine as a loose time chain and/or camshaft actuator failure should not require a total engine replacement. This was also passed on to the ** on August 3, 2022. The ** stated it would call *** when further *** had been performed.

The customer called on August 16, 2022, for a claim update. The *** system indicated that no documents had been provided by the ** and there had been no communication with the ** since the call on August 3, 2022. *** tried to reach the ** to learn the state of the vehicle and whether the *** had been completed.

The customer provided her statement of the issue on August 19, 2022. She had owned the vehicle since 2020. She first noticed an issue with the vehicle in March but could not recall the date. The vehicle had been towed to the ** in March 2022. The customer stated she had no records but the vehicle had been at Land Rover and she would try to get records from the dealership and would check on CarFax. *** was still waiting for pictures from the ** of the bent valves and piston damage to verify failure.

The ** called *** on August 30, 2022, asking about the next steps in the claim. *** advised the ** to provide photos showing the bent valves and damage to the piston. The ** stated it would get with its technician and provide the photos. The photos were not provided until September 21, 2022, along with a copy of the freeze frame data for the *** P0016 and the ***s. The ** also reported it had borescope views but no real *** had been completed. The ** verified that the timing chain had issues and was the cause of failure.

*** reviewed the freeze frame data on September 22, 2022. ******** showed the P0016 code had first been present at ******* miles, which was 602 miles prior to purchase of the ***. This indicated the initial failure occurred prior to the purchase of the *** and thus the *** had no coverage. Any current failure would be the customer's responsibility and the customer would have to show the repairs were performed for any coverage on potential future failures. The denial was explained to the customer multiple times.

The claim was reviewed by a Legal Claims Specialist for *** (the "Specialist"), who determined the claim had been adjudicated correctly and in accordance with the terms of the ***.

*** has freeze frame data provided by the ** that shows that *** P0300 was present roughly 600 miles prior to the inception mileage. This code is for a random engine misfire. This code in particular will always set a check engine light warning as it is a code that indicates the catalyst could be damaged. Often times the check engine light will flash when a P0300 code is present as this issue must be addressed immediately before damage is done to the engine or the catalyst.

The main point of the customers complaint is that she had no way of knowing that the vehicle was failing before the engine totally locked up. However, the Specialist is certain that the check engine light was illuminated due to the nature of the code that was stored. There is a CarFax record from roughly eight months prior to the *** purchase and ****** miles prior to the code being set. It is unlikely that this will show anything, but it does cause concern as the vehicle was in for inspection only.

This claim was initially denied for overheat as the ** reported coolant was all over the ground and it had overheated. After being advised of the denial, the ** reported that the actual failure was due to a slacked timing chain and had nothing to do with overheat. This claim is also very early into coverage; and due to the nature of the failure, causes concern for pre-existing condition, a *** exclusion. The customer, by her statement in the complaint, states that she "drove the vehicle until it stopped working."

With that stated, *** is willing to resolve this dispute amicably and offers to instruct the seller of the *** to cancel the *** and fully refund to the customer the payments made for the ***. This offer must be accepted within seven days of the filing of this response or the offer will be null and void. The customer should accept this offer by writing the **************** at *************************************** or by responding to the BBB.

We trust the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in the complaint. Please do not hesitate to contact our legal department at *************************************** if you have questions.

Customer Answer
Date: 12/01/2022
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of Arbitration. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID .********, , and find that arbitration is necessary.
Sincerely,
*************************
Business Response
Date: 12/07/2022
Better Business Bureau:

American Auto Shield accepts the arbitration offer presented by the Better Business Bureau.

Sincerely,
American Auto Shield

BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.

When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.

BBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period, except for customer reviews. Customer reviews posted prior to July 5, 2024, will no longer be published when they reach three years from their submission date. Customer reviews posted on/after July 5, 2024, will be published indefinitely unless otherwise voluntarily retracted by the user who submitted the content, or BBB no longer believes the review is authentic. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. If you choose to do business with this company, please let them know that you checked their record with BBB.

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business. Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation. BBB charges a fee for BBB Accreditation. This fee supports BBB's efforts to fulfill its mission of advancing marketplace trust.

Cookies on BBB.org

Complaints

Customer Complaints Summary

If you've experienced an issue

Filter and sort by

Sort by

Complaint status

Complaint type

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Business Response

Customer Answer

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Business Response

Business Response

Customer Answer

Customer Answer

Business Response

Customer Answer

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Customer Answer

Business Response

Customer Answer

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Complaint statuses

Business Response

Customer Answer

Business Response

American Auto Shield, LLC is NOT a BBB Accredited Business.